|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 2, 2010 12:35:14 GMT
Yeah, but this does not imply that AIDS can only be transferred via "anal" and not via "normal".
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 2, 2010 14:00:18 GMT
Great idea: lets talk about climate!
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 2, 2010 16:23:52 GMT
I guess this is where this discussion really starts to lose me. What exactly are you talking about by taking a red pill and starting to understand? What gave you this secret knowledge that many of the rest of us are just refusing to accept? the red pill is a reference to the movie the matrix. You take the red pill to come out of the matrix. No secret knowledge. Just a better understanding of the chess game being played by the global elites. I guess I'm a little less paranoid about it. I think people act in their concentric circles of interest which usually starts with themselves and goes outwards. The farther outward it goes, the less self interest, and thus the less motivation for them to act there, and the more possible it is for an interest in one of their smaller circles (closer to them) to conflict and thus prevent the action in the outer circle. But there is enough difference in people that the innermost circle is not always themselves - it can be family, religious groups, etc. I don't argue that there are powerful people, but not as powerful as people seem to want me to believe. There are plans and plots, but I don't buy the global conspiracy, or see conspiracies behind every problem, no. That's not a refusal to swallow a red pill on my part, that just lining up my ideas with my observations of how people act. Logically, I see huge problems with most "Conspiracies" that people tell me about, and most times, those logical problems I have with them go back to my observations of how people act, and how far outside of that observation would be necessary for the conspiracy that someone is telling me about.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 2, 2010 16:52:37 GMT
the red pill is a reference to the movie the matrix. You take the red pill to come out of the matrix. No secret knowledge. Just a better understanding of the chess game being played by the global elites. I guess I'm a little less paranoid about it. I think people act in their concentric circles of interest which starts with themselves and goes outwards. The farther outward it goes, the less self interest, and thus the less motivation for them to act there, and the more possible it is for an interest in one of their smaller circles (closer to them) to conflict and thus prevent the action in the outer circle. But there is enough difference in people that the innermost circle is not always themselves - it can be family, religious groups, etc. I don't argue that there are powerful people, but not as powerful as people seem to want me to believe. There are plans and plots, but I don't buy the global conspiracy, or see conspiracies behind every problem, no. That's not a refusal to swallow a red pill on my part, that just lining up my ideas with my observations of how people act. Logically, I see huge problems with most "Conspiracies" that people tell me about, and most times, those logical problems I have with them go back to my observations of how people act, and how far outside of that observation would be necessary for the conspiracy that someone is telling me about. You haven't said anything that I would disagree with really. What we are really talking about are extremely wealthy people who seek to control markets for their own benefit. Nothing new there and totally in keeping with everything you said. Their wealth makes them powerful and extends their influence beyond just this business or that market but to governments and governmental policies. Here is the game they play: Do you see the game here? An example from the same source: So is it surprising that most of the funding for AGW comes from these tax exempt foundations? No. The old adage to follow the money works well here. It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. 1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government). 2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress. 3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law. 4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants. 5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy. Now doesn't that sound like what is going on with AGW?
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Mar 2, 2010 22:33:03 GMT
aj1983 wrote: "So, if AIDS is not dangerous for heterosexuals, all Africans must be practicing what is still by law forbidden in many US states or be gay right? No wonder you don't want to accept the results of AGW research (I'm not talking about the alarmism which have been used widely on both topics).
The fact that homosexuals have a greater risk of AIDS can be explained by many other reasons, which, inconveniently (yeah, there you have that word again) do not exclude a risk for heterosexuals." ...........................
Someone always bring up Africa, without doing the least bit of research. No wonder you believe in AGW.
First, the heterosexual epidemic theory was based solely on sexual transmission, much like CO2 is blamed for everything. That Gays may have other risk factors is not relevant, nor are those factors (IV drug use, e.g.) limited to that community. Some heterosexuals DO get AIDS via those non-sexual ways, and a few heterosexual women get AIDS via the same sexual transmission route as Gays. But the bottom line is the Great Heterosexual AIDS epidemic was based on deliberately distorted facts that 'proved' heterosexual sex was a major transmission path.
Let's put aside the difference in cultures - the fact that due to poverty there are many groups in Africa that use anal intercourse as a form of birth control, or when the woman is otherwise indisposed, although those things do increase the spread of AIDS. Instead, I want to suggest a really fantastic non-fiction book by Richard Preston, called "The Hot Zone." It describes how hemorrhagic fevers and both the Ebola and Marburg virus explode in epidemics every few years in Africa. Hemorrhagic fever, Ebola, and Marburg viruses are passed by contact with bodily fluids, most notably blood - same as AIDS. There is a passage (I hate to paraphrase, but I've loaned my copy out) that describes the situation in Africa like this:
The most common illness in Africa is malaria. When a patient goes to a local clinic presenting any of the symptoms of that illness ( flu-like illness with fever, chills, muscle aches, and headache), there is no attempt for further diagnosis, which they would be hard-pressed to do, anyway. They are given an injection and sent home. Due to the extreme lack of facilities and supplies, many clinics have but one, two, or three syringes. These syringes are rinsed off with water between the hundreds of patients the see daily, most of them suffering malaria. Many viruses have the same symptoms as malaria, although that hardly matters. Since malaria is so common, it is likely that a patient with a rarer virus also has malaria. So the medical clinics, themselves, are the origination point of the epidemics, spreading the infection to large numbers of their patients.
Now Preston didn't mention AIDS; it wasn't the subject of his book. But his book was published in 1994 and describes the conditions in Africa in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This was exactly the same period that AIDS was exploding in different areas of the world. And no, you don't have to rely on a single description found in one book, you can research those facts yourself. Other than sexual transmission, what is the other primary transmission route? Can there be any doubt as to how AIDS became so widespread in Africa?
In addition to this basic research, I suggest you also research the laws of the states of the US writ Gays. Your beliefs are very much outdated.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 3, 2010 13:40:08 GMT
"The Boston Globe Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric" (Obama and Jackson follow suit) "In a long op-ed piece for The New York Times the other day, Gore cranked up the doomsday rhetoric. Human beings, he warned, “face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ His 1,900-word essay made no mention of his financial interest in promoting such measures - Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’ However, he did mention “global-warming pollution’’ no fewer than four times, declaring that “our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation’’ if we don’t move decisively to reduce it." "Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith. In almost messianic terms, he urges Congress to sharply restrain Americans’ access to energy. “What is at stake,’’ he writes, “is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.’’" www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 3, 2010 14:15:24 GMT
"The Boston Globe Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric" (Obama and Jackson follow suit) "In a long op-ed piece for The New York Times the other day, Gore cranked up the doomsday rhetoric. Human beings, he warned, “face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ His 1,900-word essay made no mention of his financial interest in promoting such measures - Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’ However, he did mention “global-warming pollution’’ no fewer than four times, declaring that “our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation’’ if we don’t move decisively to reduce it." "Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith. In almost messianic terms, he urges Congress to sharply restrain Americans’ access to energy. “What is at stake,’’ he writes, “is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.’’" www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/I agree with him on the 'grandchildren looking back at this generation as criminal - I probably don't agree on the reason for that belief or who in particular they will believe was criminal.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Mar 3, 2010 16:01:53 GMT
"Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith."
I think it rather, ""Gore is a True Believer in Money; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of profiteering."
If he really were a "True Believer" in climate change, he would make changes in his OWN lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 3, 2010 16:25:33 GMT
If he really were a "True Believer" in climate change, he would make changes in his OWN lifestyle. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 3, 2010 19:30:17 GMT
If he really were a "True Believer" in climate change, he would make changes in his OWN lifestyle. Exactly. Gore has an ego the size of T-rex that rules his every thought. It will not permit him to make any substantive changes, especially when it is continuously fed by others with equally large egos. It's a very effective mutual admiration circle that he is part of.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 4, 2010 0:22:42 GMT
Gore has an ego the size of T-rex that rules his every thought. It will not permit him to make any substantive changes, especially when it is continuously fed by others with equally large egos. It's a very effective mutual admiration circle that he is part of. He fancies himself as one of the global elites but reality is he is just another tool.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 4, 2010 5:32:58 GMT
dc51 « Reply #58 on Feb 28, 2010, 3:32pm » (Page 4) They don't need to rig the vote, they simply have the system rigged so you can only vote for mickey mouse or donald duck and they both work for Disney.... scpg02 « Reply #59 on Feb 28, 2010, 3:43pm » (Page 4) LOL yeah that's part of it but sometimes the votes still need to be manipulated. A little off-topic, but since you are interested: The following refer to items about how to steal an election (among several dozen of such reports dating from November, 2000) Hack: How to Steal an Election Technology Review: Princeton University computer scientists expose the weakness of a diebold voting machine Re: Vulnerability of Diebold AccuVote-TS to an election fraud virus. By Daniel Turner Technology Review, November/December 2006, pages 26-27. (link confirmed 3/4/2010, Paywall!) www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17677&ch=infotech&a=fPrinceton reportSecurity Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting MachineAriel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten From the Abstract: "For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities—a voting-machine virus." (“Diebold” became or changed its name to “Premier Election Solutions”)itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:30:35 -0400 (From UseNet Comp.Risks 24.76 on 20070731) From: D****** G***** <gr*****r@earthlink.net> Subject: Scientists' Tests Hack Into Electronic Voting MachinesNew York Times: "Computer scientists from California universities have hacked into three electronic voting systems used in California and elsewhere in the nation and found several ways in which vote totals could potentially be altered, according to reports released yesterday by the state." The article includes discussion of the current House bill to require paper audit trails. Source: *The New York Times* (link confirmed 8/2/2007 12:40pm) www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28vote.html
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 4, 2010 6:44:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Mar 4, 2010 8:37:22 GMT
Regardless how much I admire and like USA and its people, I would say that American Democracy and electoral system could be graded not higher thata ´C´class (just ´pass´) compared to other democracies round the world. The entire system seems to be designed to leave out of the game the outstanding variety and colourful political approaches and believes of its people. The electoral game is being played with ´marked cards´ too, leaving great room for ´conspirancies´ coming from certain elites within both major political parties and associated pressure groups (lobbies). There are many -both within and outside USA- who believe that latest Presidential elections, and some other in the past, have been manipulated either by preventing or making it really hard for certain voter´s profile to exercise their vote or even by direct electoral rigging in key States such as Florida, Ohio, etc. Nowadays computerized elections theorically were put forward to discard old relic vote systems in some states which had been proved to be, and thus kept, as a good mean for distorsion of the elector´s choice (between Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny or alike, most of the times, anyway) but if you -the people- don´t press to correct it (computer voter´s machines possible manipulations) they will come out being just a much more updated and sophisticated mean for fixing elections. Certainly Conspiracies do play a major role in the American electoral system, to my knowledge
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 4, 2010 16:40:35 GMT
...I would say that American Democracy and electoral system could be graded not higher than a ´C´class In operation, you are probably correct. But that is not how it was designed. The system, as designed, is a representative Republic. Representatives are elected by citizens. There are two chambers: the House of Representatives (apportioned by population) and the Senate (apportioned by State). The House was designed to respond to the citizens quickly (two year terms). The Senate (six year terms) was designed to mitigate mob action by the House (see "Shay's Rebellion"). The reasoning behind such seeming complexity was simple: historically, pure democracies seldom survive more than 200 years (see "The Federalist Papers"). The framers of the Constitution were well-read in history and the nature of humankind. (John Adams entered Harvard at 16, having passed oral exams including Latin and Greek.) The Constitution was written so that the bedrock of this nation would not be subject to the whims of the "rulers". There is one other underlying principle: The citizens (indeed, all of mankind) own the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (endowment). Citizens assign the exercise of a portion of these rights to government. So there are some clues to movements or people with tyrannical impulses. These contend: - The Constitution is obsolete
- There is no such thing as an endowment
- This nation is / should be a Democracy
- Let's have a straight up-or-down majority vote
As Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, when asked what kind of government had been framed by the Constitutional Convention: "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
By the way, scpg02, nice illustration! ;D
|
|